For all those people worrying about the stats, as someone else pointed out to me, the high stats could just be because LSN is an unrepresentative sample (especially if you compare them to the ABA stats, though those could be attending rather than admitted stats). I just thought it would be interesting to see stats based on the data to which we currently have access. Also, I thought it was interesting to see that the stats do not change too much between the first admits and later admits.

I am going to go back and look at the data again at some point to identify the people who had pre-Thanksgiving JR1s, but did not get admitted until after the first batch. I know that there were at least a couple. Also, when I have time I will check through the rejected list for any JR1s. Hopefully, I won't find any in that sample!

So since the JR1, JR2 rate is higher for LSN than overall, that means that since we use LSN, we will have a higher JR1, JR2 rate than overall, too, right? Yup, I am going to use backward logic to delude myself.

Also, in terms of the retake discussion, I agree that a retake is a disadvantage, though it seems like each case is taken differently. I did not write an addendum and was not asked about it. I think it depends on a lot of different factors.

How do JR1s work with WLs? Do most waitlisted people who eventually get in have their JR1s way later in the cycle right before they're waitlisted or are they the people who have JR1s now-ish but don't get the JR2? Or, do you get WL'ed and then have a JR1 before getting admitted?

Based on LSN data, it works both ways. There were people who had JR1s before getting waitlisted, both early and late in the cycle, who later got in off of the waitlist. There were also some people who got waitlisted and later got JR1s and got in off of the waitlist.

Try to keep in mind that there is an inherent bias in who reports what information--those with JR1s are going to be more likely to report they have them than those who don't get them (it is nice sharing good news--if I flub my interview I'll probably want to talk about it as little as possible). It is a long cycle and Harvard keeps admitting for a long while; not getting an immediate JR1 is not necessarily an indication that you won't get one. And from all accounts, it looks like this cycle will be a touch softer than the last, so we might see more acceptances on the back end.

The Real Jack McCoy wrote:As someone who had a bad Friday last Friday:

Try to keep in mind that there is an inherent bias in who reports what information--those with JR1s are going to be more likely to report they have them than those who don't get them (it is nice sharing good news--if I flub my interview I'll probably want to talk about it as little as possible). It is a long cycle and Harvard keeps admitting for a long while; not getting an immediate JR1 is not necessarily an indication that you won't get one. And from all accounts, it looks like this cycle will be a touch softer than the last, so we might see more acceptances on the back end.

The Real Jack McCoy wrote:As someone who had a bad Friday last Friday:

Try to keep in mind that there is an inherent bias in who reports what information--those with JR1s are going to be more likely to report they have them than those who don't get them (it is nice sharing good news--if I flub my interview I'll probably want to talk about it as little as possible). It is a long cycle and Harvard keeps admitting for a long while; not getting an immediate JR1 is not necessarily an indication that you won't get one. And from all accounts, it looks like this cycle will be a touch softer than the last, so we might see more acceptances on the back end.